9 years and 4500 Dead Americans
 

The final column of around 100 mostly U.S. military MRAP armored vehicles carrying 500 U.S. troops trundled across the southern Iraq desert from their last base through the night and daybreak along an empty highway to the Kuwaiti border.

Thus ends a tragic chapter of American history. We hope.

Amen

Not to mention the trillion or so dollars that we would all really like to have about now.

Enough to have paid for single payer health care, fixed our national infrastructure, fully funded Social Security.......

Hearing conservatives in Congress fight over every billion spent on social programs now, insisting on offsetting cuts, I keep wanting to scream 'WHERE WERE YOU ****OLES WHEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO INCLUDE THE WAR IN THE BUDGET'.

I'm ecstatic that we are outta there. I really don't believe it though. There are so many contractors/hired hitmen and more that will most likely never leave.

Also this part rankles me a bit:
From Media Matters:

Yes. This was Bush's war. From start to finish. He deserves all the credit.

This. This. THIS YOU ****ING MORONS!!!!!!

I really don't know how much clearer it can be.

It could have been a whole lot worse..

How could it have been worse? The president and his wackos from a conservative movement lied repeatedly to justify the massacre of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. That $2billion war (just another of their hundreds of lies) has cost us $1trillion. And will probably cost up to $4trillion once we pay for so much scrapped equipment and the massive injuries incurred by so many soldiers. We have only just started to pay for that war - which is how economics work.

Why could it be worse when so many Americans gleefully believed outright lies from those, who promote a political agenda for their own self serving purposes, even massacred 4500 American soldiers for no purpose? I don't even know a probably larger numbers of American contractors also not counted. Murder because wacko extremists consider lying to be normal and acceptable.

To go to war means three requirements must always exist. But again, because so many will forget what was posted when scumbags were so giddy to massacre American soldiers. 1) A smoking gun. Never existed in Iraq. 2) A strategic objective. None existed. 3) An exit strategy. None existed until wackos were so discredited that they could no longer ignore what far more intelligent generals were saying all along.

Iraq is a defeat directly attributed to so many who espouse rhetoric from people such as UG. As one Iraqi civilian was recently quoted. He could walk home at 4 AM when Saddam was in power. I cannot even walk home safely today at 4 PM. None of the environmental conditions necessary to make a productive country exist in Iraq any more. And Iraqis rightly blame the reason - America. Maybe only Fox News forgets to report that well publized fact.

Now, let's go back to what was even posted here so many years ago. Sahdr quietly stopped conducting war when it became apparent that once America left, then he could take up his purpose. Sahdr went to Homs in Iran to finish his studies. Now that the 800 pound guerilla is gone, Iraqis are expected to pick up where they left off. A power struggle begins. It may remain where all conflicts and wars end - negotiated settlement. Or it may become violent. Now is when we really learn what we have done to subvert stability in that part of the world. We even left Iran with the most favorable influence ever in Iraq. The dumbest leaders America ever had - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Bolton Feith, etc - deserve all the credit. Feith, in particular, was so dumb that some American Generals told him so to his face.

To learn why America has so been harmed, see the political agenda that replaced pragmatic analysis. See the Project for a New American Century. Then review old Cellar discussions to learn how obviously destructive that agenda would be - accurately identified in the Cellar almost a decade ago.

Meanwhile, we had a real enemy in Afghanistan. Those same scumbags all but protected bin Laden. Even surrendered to the Taliban in 2002. That war is also a legacy of wacko extremist who even violated basic military doctrine taught in China 2000 years before Columbus. That surrender also traceable to wacko extremists who needed to attack Saddam to protect their legacy in history. Today's fiasco in Afghanistan directly traceable to wacko extremists who even said, "America does not do nation building."

Well, let's put up numbers traceable in part to the wackos who love war. In 1992 dollars, an American under 35 was averaging $45K annually. In those same 1992 dollars, an American under 35 was averaging $47K. In 2008, the average under 35 American averaged $32K. Of course. Nations who love war routinely destroy their economies. And let's not fool anyone. Due to what those wacko extremists did in Desert Storm, we have been at war for over 20 years.

It is not just George Jr's fault. His wacko extremists have done 20 years of damage to America in the name of a political agenda (ie Project for a New American Century), conservatism, and by just being plain dumb. Then blame liberal press, liberal parties, liberal universities, liberal ... what ever they could invent for all failures. How many times would they deny and contradict well proven military doctrine defined over 2500 years ago? Even with six on every hand, I don't have enough fingers.

If it could have been worse, then show me what other military doctrine they did not violate? And show me with numbers. $4trillion. 100,000+ dead. 4,500 massacred for no purpose. Surrender to the Taliban. All but protected bin Laden. 20 years of war directly traceable to their drinking champaign rather than providing Swartzkopf the work they were required to do before Desert Storm started. How could anyone in a position of power be dumber?

tw, what are the strategic objectives and exit strategy in Afghanistan?

They are playing this a lot in my area.

Do we have even have an exit strategy in Afghanistan? :confused: We got rid of Bin Laden - finally! Lets get out of Afghanistan, too, already.

I LOVE THIS COMMERCIAL. I watch Politics Nation with Sharpton nearly every day when I get home from work, and while I don't always agree with him and often find his style irritating, I can't get enough of him talking about bluhbr'y paah.

edit: Kenan Thompson doing Rev. Al on SNL a few weeks ago. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...arpton/1372907

What is clear is you don't know either the value or the importance of breaking a tyranny whenever you can. We could and we did. You can only see the cost. I see the benefit.

I'm not a Fascist, Brianna, but those guys were (go ahead, look it up), and you look a lot like one right here. Now compare your semblances to mine.

Personally, I just can't get tired of obliterating tyrannies, and can't understand or appreciate those who do.

I've seen what less-than-democracies behave like. It's enough to make you clean and re-clean your assault rifle and hone your bayonet most of the afternoon, I'm tellin' ya.

The worthwhile "exit strategy" is spelled W-I-N. Regardless of resistance, uncaring of time. Make that which is less-than-democracy or pretends-to-democracy extinct. Your world will improve.

Those guys were Baathist. They were Arab socialist, anti-colonialist, and anti-imperialists. He slid into a dictatorial regime like a lot of lefty insurgents, but was not a fascist. Like it or not fascism is a product of the totalitarian right not the totalitarian left. Islamo-fascist was great war propaganda but poor political science.

The Ba'ath models itself on Fascist philosophy, and has since its WW2-era invention. Have a google at it. I think you will find it interesting.

And is it not so that neither you nor I would like to have to live on the difference between the "totalitarian right" and the "totalitarian left" anyway? Your drawing a distinction between them is, I think, ill advised: give Leftism Revisited: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn, a good read.

It's magisterial, thorough, in places eccentric, and unrebutted. He makes a hell of a case for "left" totalitarians and "right" totalitarians being undistinguishable, and contends there is little point in trying to partition either philosophy from the other. I found his thesis fascinating. He did show an eccentric devotion to the throne of Austria-Hungary, for a strange note in the work -- figures Austria-Hungary's royal house's fall was the proximate cause of Eastern Europe's slide into a hell of collectivism and un-capitalism and Western Europe's close, and he believed ill-advised, approaches thereunto. How it might have prevented that descent by there still being an Austria-Hungary or its empire, I don't recall his getting into. Perhaps some other work.

I've also seen first hand the darker actions actions taken by "less-than-democracies." I sincerely hope that people of all nations gain their freedom - whatever THEY may define that freedom to be.

However, the US has plenty of problems at home to resolve before it goes frisking off to baby sit others. No one freed us from colonial rule but ourselves. We appreciate our liberty the more because of that. Let others do the same.

Besides, if US foreign policy is actually to go forth and demolish non-democracies, shouldn't we be going after the greatest remaining communist regime of them all - red China? But, no, far from it. US corporations can't outsource US jobs to China fast enough. Plus, we count on China to continue to take our worthless paper dollars to pay our debt, else the entire house of cards would collapse.

Far from attempting to make the Chinese communist regime extinct, the US is salivating for their co-operation. Don't give me that crap about Afghanistan; our actions there and in Iraq only show up the obvious hypocrisy inherent in US foreign policy.

One day after the US troops leave Iraq the turmoil deepens...

NY Times
JACK HEALY
December 19, 2011

Arrest Order for Sunni Leader in Iraq Opens New Rift
And the beat goes on...

The strategic objective was the elimination of bin Laden and those who protect Al Qaeda. The exit strategy involved phase four planning that had to be accomplished within a year after hostilities ended. But wacko extremist blindly follow their political agenda - America does not do nation building. No phase four planning was possible due to a wacko extremist political agenda. Everyone heard the wackos subvert the exit strategy. "America does not do nation building." Any better educated American saw the disaster in that sound byte. The least educated blindly repeated it as something good.

Having surrendered to the Taliban in 2002, a strategic objective is no longer viable. We got bin Laden. We probably can no longer take out those who protected him due to that 2002 surrender. So we have a real problem in Afghanistan.

What is worse, a defeat will not be known until after we leave. Because the strategic objective was so subverted back in 2002. Unsolvable problems created by wacko extremists in 2002 are now apparent in the attitude of every Afghanistani. Now made even worse because Afghanistan is considered by so many Pakistani power brokers as to be an enemy. Even every ally adjacent to Afghanistan turned against us or remained reluctant (well paid) friends during the George Jr administration due an obvious problem. 99% of all problems directly traceable to their intelligence. A legacy we must now live with.

So many who were once our allies and friends have little trust of Americans. George Jr destroyed America's relations with virtually every nation in the world. Just fixing this damage has kept Hilary Clinton extremely busy. More reasons why the strategic objective may be impossible. A viable exit strategy - too late for that. Just more in a long list of legacies created by people who think just like UG. Where big dic thinking and excessive military power can solve everything. Right. As if nobody bothered to learn from - Deja vue Nam.

All attempts to achieve a strategic objective were subverted by George Jr. He even disbanded Alec Station in 2005. A group created by Clinton in 1996 to only do one thing - get bin Laden. Anything by Clinton was evil, said wacko extremists. Besides, a strategic objective in Afghanistan was contrary to the George Jr administration political agenda. George Jr needed that bogeyman alive. So George Jr did what was necessary to subvert the strategic objective.

We suffer consequences of that subverted agenda. Complicated by generals who would fight forever rather than admit George Jr made the objective virtually impossible to achieve. We will never really know until after we leave. Because of the American surrender in 2002, the Taliban have better cards to play.

How many $billions are paid annually to corrupt governments because we are stuck in a quagmire? If we don't pay big bucks for the friendship of adjacent nations, then we have an army stuck in Afghanistan like the Nazis in Stalingrad. Appreciate this mess we inherited because George Jr so harmed our relations even with countries north of Afghanistan. And a military unwilling to admit the strategic objective may no longer be viable.

Due to the 2002 surrender, our every option in Afghanistan is a bad one. Another example of how American soldiers get massacred when the people forget to get educated - and listen to Limbaugh, et al.

Islamo-fascism is how the least educated extremists among us are told how to think. Empowered by an emotion call hate. If using emotion, then they will not ask damning questions that can only come from logic and education.

The sound byte was invented for the same reason that George Jr could disband Alec Station in 2005 - to all but protect bin Laden. A true right wing extremist conservative should have been angry. But the least educated among us (wacko extremists) are told by Limbaugh, et al how to think. Just like a good Brown Shirt. So wacko extremists were joyous when Alec Station was disbanded. Protecting bin Laden was good for the political agenda.

Wacko extremists even got Lowes to stop advertising on a program that introduces Americans to a patriotic American minority group. Because wacko extremists need Islamo-Fascism to inspire more hate just like the KKK. How many in Europe have heard how wacko extremists got Lowes to endorse their hate?

Hate rallies wacko extremism - a group unique from conservatives due to an inability to think for themselves. Extremists need Islamo-Fascism and other soundbytes to shout down the bourgeois and intelligencia.

They would only be shouting Georgian chants for our amusement if it did not cause the massacre of thousands of American soldiers for no purpose. Islamo-Fascism is recited loudly by those who would otherwise be members in good standing in the KKK. Hate is a major source of their political power.

Jeez, they could at least wait until the dust of departure has settled.

I was glad we have managed this more-or-less dignified exit, although as has been pointed out, there are still lots of foreigners running about in Iraq, many of them with guns. I hope Iraq holds together for a few years at least. It would be embarrassing if it disintegrates too soon. I suspect within five or ten years it will face another major upheaval and will either break up or be seized by another tyrant.

IMHO, the Iraq war was NOT worth it. Yes, the world is down one brutal but insignificant tyrant. #$%% him, but so what? The price was an enormous political and economic strain on the US and its allies, and has left these substantially weaker than before. Meanwhile, resurgent Russia and China - the real threats to global peace and justice - have grown unchecked.

Not just TW, I'd like to hear anyone answer this question.

Yeah nice soundbite, what conditions constitute winning? And are you really keen on bleeding indefinitely in the mountains of FUBARistan while China continues to move ahead of the US?

IMO, Bush's war in Iraq came about for one rather trivial reason...
It drove GWB nuts that Sadam was giving $10K to the families of suicide bombers in Afghanistan.
It was then up to Cheney to contrive the war to gain control of Iraq's oil fields,
which the oil industry wanted for when the Saudi fields run dry.

----

My answer to the UT's question is the same as back when
doves and hawks were arguing over how to get out of Viet Nam.

During one TV show, there was a vehement debate between talking heads,
and Shirley McLain (an outspoken dove) was asked how she proposed to get out of Nam.
Her answer was: " By boat "
.

Yeah, but Afghanistan is landlocked.

We're really screwed now, aren't we?

George Jr's autobiography demonstrates why none of that was relevant to him. Remember, George Jr was only a figurehead. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al made the decisions. George Jr did not even read his own memos - as demonstrated by the 911 Commission Report and reported by his Secretary of the Treasury.

Purpose of war is to take a conflict to the negotiation table. That's the only purpose. The military gets there. Then a leadership presents surrender terms and implements plans made before a first battle was fought. Basic military doctrine understood over 2000 years ago.

When Swartzkopf asked for those terms, our civilian leadership had no plans. Swartzkopf had to invent terms, on the spot, without any planning or forethought. It was not his job. Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the other Washington based leadership failed to do their job.

Saddam attacked and killed maybe 10,000 or 20,000 civilians in Basra as US soldiers watched helplessly from less than 5 miles away. Saddam kept and liberally used amour to suppress all dissent. Surrender terms were so flawed that we eventually had to create no-fly zones for another decade. Clinton finally solved many of those problems with multiple cruise missile strikes.

Cheney, et al are recorded in history as the reason why Saddam survived. They needed any excuse to exonerate their legacy. They invented reason to attack Saddam. To have the military correct their mistakes.

Iraqis could not liberate themselves from Saddam because Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al screwed up. Failed to understand that the purpose of all war is only negotiations at a peace table. No way around military principles taught 2500 years ago. Civilians threw away the military's resounding victory by not planning for the peace.

Irony was obvious with the fall of Baghdad. Within days, it was obvious that a same civilian leadership (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) had, again, done no planning for the peace. You can read that obvious problem when it was happening here in the Cellar. Next six months required implementing of phase four planning. Those same civilian leaders (and Paul Bremer) did no planning. Their 'do nothing' eventually made necessary an insurgency.

This was so obvious to all generals that one general after another resigned rather than take command of Mission Accomplished. In order to find any general, Rumsfeld had to promote a one star general (without any experience but as a division commander) to two stars so that he could take command.

Sanchez was totally unprepared for the job. But he was the only general that would take command. As a result, thousand of American soldiers were killed. In part because another basic military doctrine was violated. Only one supreme commander can be in the field. Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al had so little grasp as to create two constantly fighting commanders - Bremer and Sanchez.

In Desert Storm and Mission Accomplished, a military victory was trashed by ignorant civilians who only had their political agenda. Extremists such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other "Project for a New American Century" founders had no basic knowledge. Worse, their political agenda said, "America does not do nation building".

Mission Accomplished was those extremists trying to protect their legacy. Find any excuse to take out Saddam so history would not blame them. Because they made no plans for the peace. So what did they do in Mission Accomplished? Again, made no plans for the peace.

And what did they do in Afghanistan? No plans for the peace explain why America all but surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2002.

They attacked Saddam to protect their legacy. Then made the exact same mistakes again. Read posts that describe it as it was happening in the Cellar back in and after 2002. Because their mistakes were that obvious that long ago.

Wow. The Axis of Evil now expands to include FUBARistan. Another nation we must unilaterally attack for no reason.

Again we attack a nation that our citizens believe is evil ... but cannot find on a map.

I'm not great student of American history but, I understand there was a significant contribution by a foreign military power in the Revolutionary War. I don't know if it's considered that the colonists would have succeeded without French assisstance.

Well, sure, the French were helpful for reasons of their own. But their contribution bares no comparison with US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc., etc., ad nauseum. France did NOT turn up with a big army and land in the colonies to inform them that they were going to have a revolution now because France thought it was a cool idea. Colonial America decided on its own to break with the British. This is what I was trying to get at.

Also, I have read that the 13 colonies would have gained their freedom with or without France. French participation simply meant that the war ended sooner than it might have otherwise done. I don't know what the consensus of the historians is, though.

What about the Indians ?

Think of the Indians

Without whom your dumbasses would have been royally fucked. And I do mean royally.

UG - I'm .....I'm nearly speechless.

Nearly.

If you think the US went into Iraq to take out a dictator, you're a bigger idiot than you appear.

What I find interesting in todays world of sound bites is that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States. We just took the lid off, to leave it open like that sure makes it sound like U.S. soldiers have been wandering around Iraq killing 100,000 Iraqis. However miss guided we were for going into Iraq; we did, in good conscience, try to keep the lid on a bit tighter then it would have been had we just left in 2003. Most of the killing of Iraqis has been by Iraqis and fighters from foreign countries like Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc... I have not really heard this discussed at any length by anyone outside of the military. There certainly is a depth to this topic that cannot be covered in one post in this thread. The dynamic of Shia VS Sunni VS tribe/family/clan VS government power VS foreign influence VS whateverthefuckelseyoucanthinkoftofightabout is amazing in countries like Iraq. What the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld leadership of the day did not get right in any way shape or form was to topple the country and then the very next day hand it over to the general population and say...no need to thank me...here ya go! Even in post WWII Germany/Europe and Japan we set up military governors and city mayors etc that ran and administered the countries and communities until the military administrators were able to leave. In some cases 20 to 30 years later. I for one do not think that what we have gained and what we have lost as a result of invading and occupying Iraq has been or will be worth the results. We will be feeling the pain from this one for years to come.

The British could not apply sufficient force in the colonies. The Brits had too many other ongoing wars.

Foreign powers provided two significant contributions. First was military training - a serious problem in the colonial army at both the enlistedman and officer levels. Second was a naval blockade during Yorktown. Without supplies and support from their Navy, then Cornwallis was cut off and forced to surrender to Washington. He could not obtain supplies sufficient to survive a siege.

As with all wars, purpose is to take negotiations to a peace table. That battle itself was only decisive because the British realized they needed their forces elsewhere. Suddenly realized war in the Colonies was not worth the expense. A victory in Yorktown, by itself, did not end the war. But was a deciding factor that caused top British management to negotiate rather than keep fighting.

Had the Brits not been involved in war elsewhere, then the battle in Yorktown probably would not have been the final battle.

British had another problem. Their attitude (similar to what American troops did in Vietnam and Mission Accomplished) had turned most colonials against them. Their military tactics were only creating more enemies.

This is why it wasn't "a whole lot worse", as bad as it was. The vast majority of America's professional soldiers showed remarkable character and competence under horrific conditions.

And you won't. We will get the blame. Some of it is well placed. Much of it is not. Most people never take the time to learn the history of the area but are quick to lay blame on the US.

No violence and ethnic killings occurred in Mosul while same was ongoing in so many other regions. Petraeus and the 101st Airborne was literally stealing money to institute Phase Four planning in Mosul. As a result, Mosul was completely peaceful. Until the 101st left. Then Phase Four planning stopped. And Mosul became as violent as other Iraqi regions.

From Wikipedia: Meanwhile, Bremer never got organized. Even Bremer had to sneak out of Baghdad on a small airplane because violence Bremer created even threatened his own life.

Gen Petraeus was expelled to a penalty box. Stuck in a war college in Kansas rather than in positions for advancement such as in another combat unit or the Pentagon. He was telling truths that contradicted George Jr’s political agendas. Expelled because he was saying all along why Americans were encouraging so much Iraqi violence and uprising. One man in particular was accurately criticized for causing that violence and resulting deaths. Paul Bremer.

George Jr's chosen man, Bremer - even honored with a Freedom Medal by George Jr - was clearly a major reason why so many Iraqis attacked Americans and other Iraqi ethnic groups. A problem is well defined - 2,500 years ago - in military doctrine. Violence was inevitable when Americans did not do nation building. As soon as Petraeus and the 101st left Mosul in 2004, then entire region broke down into chaos. As military doctrine so clearly says.

Cheney, et al just assumed (due to low intelligence) that as soon as Saddam was gone, then democracy would sprout up from the earth. Why did 100,000 Iraqis die? Because wacko extremists (the right wingers that have low intelligence) said, "America does not do nation building." Suddenly 2,500 years later, that well understood principle is wrong? Only when a political agenda is confused as education and intelligence. America encouraged and enabled violence that killed over 100,000 Iraqis. Iraqis did not die when a General harmed his career by doing nation building. Iraqis died in mass numbers because low intelligence leaders in Washington said, "America does not do nation building."

None of this is new. Read old Cellar posts where reasons for an insurgency and deaths were directly attributed to, "America does not do nation building." The problem was well defined and that obvious that many years ago.

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

And they're getting right back into it, aren't they? Heck I hope the events of the last few days are just a bit of teething difficulty and things will stabilise again soon, but I have my doubts.

I was always thinking that Iraq would really struggle to hold together after the US leaves, but I was thinking in terms of five or ten years. It hasn't been a week yet.

As military doctrine says should happen when a conquering nation does not do nation building. Those first six months were that critical. As Colin Powell's "Future of Iraq" study group warned of ten years ago long before even Gen Garner appeared.

Previously, the Kurds have been successful as peace makers. In part because Kurds are so secure in their part of Iraq. Can they still do that without an 800 pound guerilla in the room?

A resulting power vacuum is also an open door for Iranian supporters of their 'favorite' side. That Sadr finished his education in Iran after deciding combat with Americans was counter-productive. Was that coincidence or part of a longer term plan?

The fact that so much violence is happening so quickly implies long term planning. Easy to implement since Iraq's economy remained worse than it was under Saddam.

Is true. If a man has power of life or death over you, it does not matter if he is "left" or "right". If you are killed by Hitler or by Stalin, you are just as dead, yes?

It is a bad idea to give any government more power than they need to fix the streets. Trust your friend Uday about this.

Your friend Uday is surprised that it is only this bad.

What many Americans do not understand is that Iraq is a manufactured nation. It is a collection of tribes which are "stapled" together by the British. Without a monster like Hussien, there is no chance to keep Iraq in one piece.

So, it is a choice between one monster and chaos in street. Choose.

One problem is that Hussein felt compelled to use his supply of staples to staple other countries on.

Lebanon, less tribal but more diverse, has remained stapled without a "big man" since 1943. Maybe the French staples are higher in quality.

Touche UT.